Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County judge presents de minimis tax option as Newton County faces roughly $500,000 shortfall
Summary
At a Sept. 24 public hearing, Newton County leaders outlined a roughly $500,000 revenue gap for FY2025, proposed a de minimis tax increase to close it, and discussed staffing cuts, rising insurance and jail-housing costs; no formal tax vote is recorded in the transcript.
The public portion of the Newton County Commissioners Court on Sept. 24 focused on choices to close a projected shortfall for fiscal year 2025, with the presiding judge presenting two reference tax rates and saying the higher, de minimis rate would generate about $500,000 more for the county.
The judge opened the hearing by noting “the no new Revenue rate is 66288 and the De Minimus rate is 7926,” and said the de minimis option “will bring an additional 500,000 to the county” to help balance the budget. He told residents that, without that additional revenue, commissioners would face deep service cuts or staffing reductions.
Why it matters: county officials said inflationary and program costs have driven the shortfall. The judge listed specific increases the court must absorb — health insurance rose by $96,000, accounting and budgeting software costs rose about $55,000, utilities by roughly $35,000 and unemployment insurance by $23,000 — and said housing detainees outside the county added roughly $160,000 (raising jail-related costs toward $300,000 for this year).
Court proposals and trade-offs included adopting the de minimis rate while pursuing non-payroll savings: eliminating four vacant positions, converting one full-time post to part-time, dropping $5.3 million of property-insurance coverage to save about $82,000, and forgoing any across-the-board raises in FY2025. The judge said those measures combined with the tax increase would allow the court to present a balanced budget.
Public commenters pressed county officials on specifics. Resident RB Reading, who identified himself during public comment, asked whether the county’s insurance payment covers employees only or their families; county staff replied that the county pays individual employee coverage and that the roughly $100,000 insurance increase cited covers employee-only premiums. Other speakers warned that shifting more insurance cost to low-paid county employees could hurt recruitment.
Commissioners also discussed revenue-concentration risks: officials warned that one large taxpaying business (referenced in the hearing) contributes an outsized share of county revenue and said losing that taxpayer would sharply reduce county receipts. The court described a $13 million General Land Office grant (no local match) to build a multipurpose shelter near the old prison site and said broadband and other grants remain in progress but cannot be used for general operations.
Grants and compliance drew sustained attention. Commissioners described past contract and grant shortcomings that generated recoupment demands; the court has hired a grant administrator and a county attorney to tighten oversight and to dispute or negotiate repayment where appropriate. Officials said a $267,000 receivable tied to a subcourthouse contract will be repaid this year after legal review.
Next steps: the court heard public comment across a wide set of budget, jail and roads issues and a motion to close the public-comment period was made near the end of the recorded session. The transcript does not record a formal vote on adopting a tax rate during the public portion it captures; the court signaled it intends to weigh the de minimis option against additional cuts before any final action.
Quotes from the record include the judge’s framing that the de minimis increase “will bring an additional 500,000 to the county,” and the resident RB Reading’s question during public comment about coverage: “is the insurance just for the employee or is it for his whole family?” Officials answered that the county currently covers the employee only.
The hearing also included discussion of a possible countywide Emergency Services District to fund ambulance service and the potential placement of a 2% sales-tax measure on a future ballot if the ESD is formed. Commissioners emphasized that many grants require strict compliance and that the court has implemented additional legal and administrative controls to reduce future repayment risk.
